Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Eliot Mooney - 99 Balloons
Here is the video about Eliot Mooney that I referenced Sunday. The father's statement is at the end.
Click Here.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
God’s Cre-Re-Demptive Work
I will admit I have meet people from time to time (especially some teenagers) and I think to myself:
*Is there really any hope for them?
*Will they ever change?
*Is there really any future for them?
But I am convicted, reminded and encouraged by 2 Cor. 4:6 which compares God’s work of redemption with His work in creation: “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6).
Wen God redeems someone, He is re0creating with the same power with which he spoke the world into existence (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10).
There is no reason I should ever doubt God’s ability to change someone because God’s power as Creator is more than able to change rebellious hearts – including mine.
MARK KUYKENDALL – Youth Pastor, Bethel Bible Church
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Doing Without Church posted by Tim Challies
Doing Without the Church?
May 24, 2009 @ 6:15 AM | Posted By: Tim Challies
Truth and Consequences
by Gene Edward Veith
The seven churches of Asia addressed in the book of Revelation had their problems. One of them looked quite lively but it was actually dead. Another was so lukewarm that the Lord was ready to spit it out of His mouth. And yet the Son of Man did not tell the Christians of Sardis or of Laodicea to pull out of their congregations.
Today, though, a growing number of Christians are doing just that. Despite the continued visibility of megachurches, the new trend is for minichurches, microchurches, or no churches at all.
According to pollster George Barna, the era of the institution is over. In his books Revolution: Finding Vibrant Faith Beyond the Walls of the Sanctuary and The Second Coming of the Church, Barna hails what he calls the "revolutionaries" who are abandoning the established church in favor of small group fellowships and individual devotion.
An increasing number of Christians have dropped out of congregations to form their own "house churches." These typically consist of a few families that meet together in someone's home. They are essentially Bible studies and fellowship groups whose members belong to no other congregation.
A house is indeed a good place for a church. Persecuted Christians have met in each other's homes from the days of ancient Rome to contemporary China. House churches may be worth reviving for American Christians, whether in face of a new persecution or just because a congregation wants to do without a big, expensive building.
But even house churches still need to have the marks of the church. The house churches Barna is lauding typically have no structure, no formal doctrines, and no organization. They usually have no ministers or elders. Instead of calling a pastor who has studied God's Word in depth and who knows how to exercise pastoral care, the practice is usually to just take turns leading the discussions. The house churches have no affiliations with any larger church body, nor do they have specific doctrines or confessions of faith. They do little, if anything, with the sacraments. No one is subject to church discipline, as such. If conflict breaks out, people just don't come back. They can just worship at somebody else's house. House churches, though, are too institutional for some people. Many Christians take homeschooling a step further and establish a "home church." In this arrangement a family is its own congregation. The father might teach from the Bible with the wife and children listening. They then adjourn to the dining room for Sunday dinner. No outsiders intrude.
Having family devotions is a salutary practice, but they are not supposed to take the place of public corporate worship. But even home churches are too institutional for some people. Why does a Christian need other people around at all? "Based on our research," Barna says approvingly, "I have projected that by the year 2010, 10 to 20 percent of Americans will derive all their spiritual input (and output) through the Internet" (Revolution, p. 180).
But even worshiping at such an electronic shrine may be too much human contact for some. Why not just contemplate God by myself? After all, isn't the inner life more spiritual than all of these externals? Isn't the personal relationship with God all that matters? In the words of country singer Josh Turner, it's all about "Me and God." And for that, I need no one else. As Turner sings, "Ain't nobody gonna come between me and God."
But actually I do need someone to come between me and God, the intermediary Jesus Christ; otherwise, I would fare about as well as a mosquito in a nuclear reactor. To know Jesus Christ, I need His external Word and His sacraments. I need someone other than myself to apply these to me. I need someone to teach me and to keep me in line. I need to worship God and receive His gifts. I need the body of Christ, that is, His church.
"Ours is not the business of organized religion, corporate worship, or Bible teaching," says Barna of his fellow anti-church revolutionaries: "We are in the business of life transformation" (The Second Coming of the Church, p. 96). But, as Michael Horton has shown in his critique of this movement, such an emphasis on "transformation" is mere moralism and mysticism. The gospel, though, involves proclamation. Preaching requires preachers. The grace of God demands the means of grace: Bible teaching, baptism, the Lord's Supper. Such necessities beget corporate worship and, yes, organized religion (see "No Church, No Problem," Modern Reformation, July/August 2008).
"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works," says the apostle, "not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near" (Heb. 10:24-25). It was not good for man to be alone even in Paradise, and it is certainly not good to be alone in a fallen world. God did not design us to be self-contained; rather, He made us dependent on others, both for our daily bread and for our spiritual nourishment.
*****
Dr. Gene Edward Veith is academic dean of Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia, and author of God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life.
The aim of Truth and Consequences is to help readers understand the broader cultural and historical implications of every theme Tabletalk magazine chooses to cover. Noted commentator Dr. Gene Edward Veith lends his talents to this column each month.
May 24, 2009 @ 6:15 AM | Posted By: Tim Challies
Truth and Consequences
by Gene Edward Veith
The seven churches of Asia addressed in the book of Revelation had their problems. One of them looked quite lively but it was actually dead. Another was so lukewarm that the Lord was ready to spit it out of His mouth. And yet the Son of Man did not tell the Christians of Sardis or of Laodicea to pull out of their congregations.
Today, though, a growing number of Christians are doing just that. Despite the continued visibility of megachurches, the new trend is for minichurches, microchurches, or no churches at all.
According to pollster George Barna, the era of the institution is over. In his books Revolution: Finding Vibrant Faith Beyond the Walls of the Sanctuary and The Second Coming of the Church, Barna hails what he calls the "revolutionaries" who are abandoning the established church in favor of small group fellowships and individual devotion.
An increasing number of Christians have dropped out of congregations to form their own "house churches." These typically consist of a few families that meet together in someone's home. They are essentially Bible studies and fellowship groups whose members belong to no other congregation.
A house is indeed a good place for a church. Persecuted Christians have met in each other's homes from the days of ancient Rome to contemporary China. House churches may be worth reviving for American Christians, whether in face of a new persecution or just because a congregation wants to do without a big, expensive building.
But even house churches still need to have the marks of the church. The house churches Barna is lauding typically have no structure, no formal doctrines, and no organization. They usually have no ministers or elders. Instead of calling a pastor who has studied God's Word in depth and who knows how to exercise pastoral care, the practice is usually to just take turns leading the discussions. The house churches have no affiliations with any larger church body, nor do they have specific doctrines or confessions of faith. They do little, if anything, with the sacraments. No one is subject to church discipline, as such. If conflict breaks out, people just don't come back. They can just worship at somebody else's house. House churches, though, are too institutional for some people. Many Christians take homeschooling a step further and establish a "home church." In this arrangement a family is its own congregation. The father might teach from the Bible with the wife and children listening. They then adjourn to the dining room for Sunday dinner. No outsiders intrude.
Having family devotions is a salutary practice, but they are not supposed to take the place of public corporate worship. But even home churches are too institutional for some people. Why does a Christian need other people around at all? "Based on our research," Barna says approvingly, "I have projected that by the year 2010, 10 to 20 percent of Americans will derive all their spiritual input (and output) through the Internet" (Revolution, p. 180).
But even worshiping at such an electronic shrine may be too much human contact for some. Why not just contemplate God by myself? After all, isn't the inner life more spiritual than all of these externals? Isn't the personal relationship with God all that matters? In the words of country singer Josh Turner, it's all about "Me and God." And for that, I need no one else. As Turner sings, "Ain't nobody gonna come between me and God."
But actually I do need someone to come between me and God, the intermediary Jesus Christ; otherwise, I would fare about as well as a mosquito in a nuclear reactor. To know Jesus Christ, I need His external Word and His sacraments. I need someone other than myself to apply these to me. I need someone to teach me and to keep me in line. I need to worship God and receive His gifts. I need the body of Christ, that is, His church.
"Ours is not the business of organized religion, corporate worship, or Bible teaching," says Barna of his fellow anti-church revolutionaries: "We are in the business of life transformation" (The Second Coming of the Church, p. 96). But, as Michael Horton has shown in his critique of this movement, such an emphasis on "transformation" is mere moralism and mysticism. The gospel, though, involves proclamation. Preaching requires preachers. The grace of God demands the means of grace: Bible teaching, baptism, the Lord's Supper. Such necessities beget corporate worship and, yes, organized religion (see "No Church, No Problem," Modern Reformation, July/August 2008).
"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works," says the apostle, "not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near" (Heb. 10:24-25). It was not good for man to be alone even in Paradise, and it is certainly not good to be alone in a fallen world. God did not design us to be self-contained; rather, He made us dependent on others, both for our daily bread and for our spiritual nourishment.
*****
Dr. Gene Edward Veith is academic dean of Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia, and author of God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life.
The aim of Truth and Consequences is to help readers understand the broader cultural and historical implications of every theme Tabletalk magazine chooses to cover. Noted commentator Dr. Gene Edward Veith lends his talents to this column each month.
Waving God Goodbye - Post by Dr. Mohler
Waving God Goodbye -- The Tale of the Unbelieving Bishop
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009 at 4:12 am ET
Printer Version E-mail
Richard Holloway is a Bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church. There seems to be on obvious problem -- he doesn't believe in God. In the Scottish Episcopal Church, that must not be a problem.
Bishop Holloway served for years as Bishop of Edinburgh and primate of the Scottish church. The Scottish Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion -- the Scottish sister church of the Church of England. During his years as Bishop of Edinburgh Holloway regularly offended the faithful, promoting one heresy or scandalous teaching after another.
In 2000 he took early retirement, but did not resign his ordination or consecration. He remains a bishop, even as he has become an agnostic.
As the Sydney Morning Herald [Australia] reports:
Holloway, contrary to popular belief, has not left the Episcopal Church, as Scottish Anglicanism is known. He may have taken early retirement as Bishop of Edinburgh but the writer remains an ordained priest and consecrated bishop, who still preaches from the pulpit, performs baptisms and weddings and even presides at communion.
That last word astonished even the secular press. The paper explained:
That he still presides at communion - indeed, as recently as three weeks ago - raises the thorny question of how an agnostic, unconvinced about the divinity of Jesus, can consecrate the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. Surely, it becomes a mere gesture? "It very much depends on the interpretation you put on it," he explains.
The obvious question is this -- How can any church retain a minister who denies belief in God? That astonishing question points to what so many Christians have not yet seen. There is no shortage of churches and ministers whose theology is heretical and, as evidenced by Bishop Holloway, even agnostic.
Nevertheless, there are churches and denominations that are all too willing to allow a minister to remain and to serve even if doctrine is reduced to what the paper calls "mere gesture."
Bishop Holloway claims a right to interpret Christianity as he sees fit. This is a claim commonly offered in some churches. The truth of the Christian faith, the great doctrines of the Bible, the creeds and confessions of the church -- all these are instantly relativized by a claimed right to private interpretation. The case of Bishop Holloway serves to demonstrate that this right of private interpretation is destructive of the very concept of truth and doctrine. Here we meet a bishop who has "interpreted" the faith all the way down to agnosticism. Many others have interpreted the faith down to something that is not recognizably Christian.
"I am not trying to persuade people in the church to adopt my angle," Holloway argues. "I just want space enough to be honest about my own convictions. The congregation I belong to in Edinburgh knows my position and is hospitable enough to include me."
How open-minded. His congregation in Edinburgh is hospitable to agnosticism and his church allows an unbeliever to preside at Christian worship.
Bishop Holloway represents the scandalous loss of doctrinal conviction that marks so many churches and denominations. He must enjoy the limelight as an agnostic bishop. His publicized status draws attention to the complete doctrinal laxity of his church.
This agnostic bishop is not the first, nor is he likely to be the last. He provides cover for slightly less scandalous heretics who seem tame by superficial comparison. He now travels the world as a speaker and writer and retired bishop.
Note this: When the truth of theological statements is exchanged for gesture, you can count on any number of folks waving goodbye to God.
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009 at 4:12 am ET
Printer Version E-mail
Richard Holloway is a Bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church. There seems to be on obvious problem -- he doesn't believe in God. In the Scottish Episcopal Church, that must not be a problem.
Bishop Holloway served for years as Bishop of Edinburgh and primate of the Scottish church. The Scottish Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion -- the Scottish sister church of the Church of England. During his years as Bishop of Edinburgh Holloway regularly offended the faithful, promoting one heresy or scandalous teaching after another.
In 2000 he took early retirement, but did not resign his ordination or consecration. He remains a bishop, even as he has become an agnostic.
As the Sydney Morning Herald [Australia] reports:
Holloway, contrary to popular belief, has not left the Episcopal Church, as Scottish Anglicanism is known. He may have taken early retirement as Bishop of Edinburgh but the writer remains an ordained priest and consecrated bishop, who still preaches from the pulpit, performs baptisms and weddings and even presides at communion.
That last word astonished even the secular press. The paper explained:
That he still presides at communion - indeed, as recently as three weeks ago - raises the thorny question of how an agnostic, unconvinced about the divinity of Jesus, can consecrate the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. Surely, it becomes a mere gesture? "It very much depends on the interpretation you put on it," he explains.
The obvious question is this -- How can any church retain a minister who denies belief in God? That astonishing question points to what so many Christians have not yet seen. There is no shortage of churches and ministers whose theology is heretical and, as evidenced by Bishop Holloway, even agnostic.
Nevertheless, there are churches and denominations that are all too willing to allow a minister to remain and to serve even if doctrine is reduced to what the paper calls "mere gesture."
Bishop Holloway claims a right to interpret Christianity as he sees fit. This is a claim commonly offered in some churches. The truth of the Christian faith, the great doctrines of the Bible, the creeds and confessions of the church -- all these are instantly relativized by a claimed right to private interpretation. The case of Bishop Holloway serves to demonstrate that this right of private interpretation is destructive of the very concept of truth and doctrine. Here we meet a bishop who has "interpreted" the faith all the way down to agnosticism. Many others have interpreted the faith down to something that is not recognizably Christian.
"I am not trying to persuade people in the church to adopt my angle," Holloway argues. "I just want space enough to be honest about my own convictions. The congregation I belong to in Edinburgh knows my position and is hospitable enough to include me."
How open-minded. His congregation in Edinburgh is hospitable to agnosticism and his church allows an unbeliever to preside at Christian worship.
Bishop Holloway represents the scandalous loss of doctrinal conviction that marks so many churches and denominations. He must enjoy the limelight as an agnostic bishop. His publicized status draws attention to the complete doctrinal laxity of his church.
This agnostic bishop is not the first, nor is he likely to be the last. He provides cover for slightly less scandalous heretics who seem tame by superficial comparison. He now travels the world as a speaker and writer and retired bishop.
Note this: When the truth of theological statements is exchanged for gesture, you can count on any number of folks waving goodbye to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)